Oh Noooooooooooo

[kilimanjaro]

people,

Just got a call this morning: 601 & 212 denied in accra, Ghana.

[latinsoulmate]

I am so sorry. You will be appealing?

[LilB]

I'm sooo sorry to hear that. What reasons did they give?

[douginguam]

people,

Just got a call this morning: 601 & 212 denied in accra, Ghana.

I am so sorry for you. Denials are always sad.
:go:Good luck when you appeal:go:

[kilimanjaro]

What are the chances of winning an appeal.

Just got back from embassy. Because of the 212(a)(9)(c)(i)(II) of the INA there is no waiver available for ten years I am told.

Should I go ahead and appeal?

Help me people... Can not tell my wife this.

[Laura]

Wait, what?

They said you are 9(c)? That makes you ineligible for the waiver, meaning they shouldn't have let you file one in the first place.

I know I should know your story but can you go over it again? Did you really attempt to enter without inspection after having been ordered removed? You really can't appeal the denial of the I-601 until they believe you are eligible for an I-601...

[kilimanjaro]

Laura

Iam devastated.

They let me file for a waiver then.
After I was previously ordered removed; I left on my own 1.2 year later.

My lawyer then did not explain to me that I had to come back only with permission. So 45 days after I self deporte I re-entered the US with an F1 I had then lied about being previously deported. from jan 2000 to may 2007 when I was arrested an deported again.

[losguerra]

Wasn't that an entry WITH inspection? But possibly fraud? How is this 9(c)? Maybe they made a mistake?

[kilimanjaro]

What if back in 1995 I had an ewi. I used my brother's passport after he left the U.S. that became my I.D.

Would this still be a 9(c)?

[Brisa6]

I'm so sorry.

[losguerra]

I wondered about this a few days ago. Almost the same situation (using a brother's passport to enter at a port-of-entry). I'll be curious to know what you find out.

[Laura]

Okay... so, you were ordered removed, didn't leave until 1.2 years later - on your own, right? When was this?

Then you filled out an application for an F-1 to get back into the U.S. and were admitted? No, you were caught, right, and then deported? Was your name on the F-1 application - was everything correct other than not admitting you had previous immigration violations?

Because that definitely doesn't sound like "without inspection." Without inspection means you snuck into the U.S. through Mexico or something. There is some question about whether using a fraudulent document to enter the U.S. is with or without inspection but in this case it sounds like you maybe just didn't disclose everything on the application, but it wasn't an attempt to EWI.

Have you ever consulted with Laurel?

[Laura]

Okay wait... the 1995 thing? Can you post a quick timeline here - like when did these entries and exits and deport orders happen?

[kilimanjaro]

EVALUATION OF CASE

Because he illegally entered the United States after a prior deportation he is now also barred from entry to the United States for ten years pursuant to section 212(a)(9)(c)(i)(II) of Immigration and Nationality Act. on the latter basis, there is no waiver available for ten years subsequent to the alien's departure from the United States.
Edit:
April 1995 -- entry with B2

Marry in 1996 to USC

She withdrew her petitionlater while in precess to adjust (dont know why)

Was arrested. Tried asylum. Was denied in 1998 and ordered removed.

Left Dec 1999. Came back jan 2000. Was inspected with that F1. Stayed in school till 2007/

Got married after devorce to now wife USC in 2002.Tried to adjust in 2005

Was picked up in 2007 the deported.

[Laura]

I think it's a really tricky legal question - whether or not coming in with that F1 was an illegal entry. I don't think that is right but it's really a question for lawyers and the consulate, who ultimately has the right to interpret what that means. I'm sorry I don't know what else to tell you. What does your lawyer say?

[kilimanjaro]

Don't have one...Can't afford one.
Edit:
what if first entry in 1995 was EWI???

[emt103c]

It does not matter if the 1995 was an EWI, because the subsequent entries were inspected (even through Misrepresentation)

(C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who-

(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or

(II) has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) , section 240 , or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years after the date of the alien's last departure from the United States if, prior to the alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, 14a/ 6aa/ the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien's reapplying for admission.


You need to get a lawyer and fast, unless they are using the new interpretation of the law (which is only valid in one district) They are misapplying this law to you and you are going to need help to prove it.

[Pinkpig]

"Was arrested. Tried asylum. Was denied in 1998 and ordered removed.

Left Dec 1999. Came back jan 2000. Was inspected with that F1. Stayed in school till 2007/"

You were ordered removed in 1998.

The only way to come back legally with a deportation is having an approved I-212. You did not have an approved waiver and then you came back into the US without a legal I-212. So they are interpreting that as illegal re-entry after deportation. It seems you have other charges as well. Your case is complicated and you need legal representation.

The only chance you have to overcome this is to consult with Laurel Scott and see if she knows how to overcome the charge, or refile after you have been out of the US after 10 years.

I am sorry. Good luck to you.

[MARIPLAY]

I am so sorry!!

[MMGCA]

I'm sorry, hope you feel better soon!

[emt103c]

The difference here is "without being admitted." A long time ago, I was corrected by an attorney here, with the difference of "illegal" entry. . .where you gain entry by Misrepresentation, vs. "without being admitted" OR EWI.

kilamanjaro gained entry after deportation WITH a visa, WITH inspection. His old deportation should have been discovered by his fingerprints, but it was not. . .

This seems to be another casualty of the Orozco case, for which there is apparently contradictory case law. (Laura 2nd vs. 9th district, right?)

How is it now being applied to out of country waivers, when there are two different districts interpreting it different ways?

[Pinkpig]

The difference here is "without being admitted." A long time ago, I was corrected by an attorney here, with the difference of "illegal" entry. . .where you gain entry by Misrepresentation, vs. "without being admitted" OR EWI.

kilamanjaro gained entry after deportation WITH a visa, WITH inspection. His old deportation should have been discovered by his fingerprints, but it was not. . .

This seems to be another casualty of the Orozco case, for which there is apparently contradictory case law. (Laura 2nd vs. 9th district, right?)

How is it now being applied to out of country waivers, when there are two different districts interpreting it different ways?

I know for sure that Laurel was able to help one member get a 9C denial overturned in Lima. That was probably about 6 months ago. But, the OP's case seems a bit more complicated than just the 9C determination.

[Laura]

The difference here is "without being admitted." A long time ago, I was corrected by an attorney here, with the difference of "illegal" entry. . .where you gain entry by Misrepresentation, vs. "without being admitted" OR EWI.

kilamanjaro gained entry after deportation WITH a visa, WITH inspection. His old deportation should have been discovered by his fingerprints, but it was not. . .

This seems to be another casualty of the Orozco case, for which there is apparently contradictory case law. (Laura 2nd vs. 9th district, right?)

How is it now being applied to out of country waivers, when there are two different districts interpreting it different ways?

I agree. The law says "entered without inspection," not "illegal entry" though it seems they are interpreting it as "illegal entry." I'm not sure what recourse you have through a consular post, it's not like being in the U.S. where there is an actual appeal process.

As far as the Orozco case having an effect, I don't know if it's that or just a potential misinterpretation. I'm not sure that the cases in the U.S. have jurisdiction on the consular post. I mean, I have no idea. It's a good question for Laurel. I would like to learn about this myself but I'm not that advanced yet.

Kilimanjaro - really my best advice is to talk to Laurel. I think she would be able to provide you at least the right legal basis to contest this.

[emt103c]

Ditto to laura. . .you need a consultation and fast.

[Bebeau]

9c is only applicable when the illegal entry or re-entry occured on or after April 1,1997 I dont know which consulate found you eligible for the waivers. If there was no finding of 9c, how could CIS overide the consul?

[emt103c]

It can get denied at any level, or overridden at any level. That is why this process is so precarious and nervewracking.